Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 174

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. E-22-665

SHERRY CANADY

APPELLANT

V.

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

WORKFORCE SERVICES

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered March 6, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

BOARD OF REVIEW

[NO. 2022-BR-01655]

REMANDED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Sherry Canady appeals an adverse ruling of the Board of Review (Board) affirming an 

Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) finding that she is liable to repay $14,272 in overpaid 

unemployment benefits. We remand.

On October 25, 2021, the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services (DWS) issued 

Canady a notice of nonfraud overpayment finding that she had received benefits to which 

she was not entitled for reasons other than fraud. Canady appealed this determination to 

the Tribunal, and the Tribunal affirmed. Canady then appealed to the Board, which affirmed 

the Tribunal’s decision, finding that the overpayment of benefits was not due to agency error. 

More specifically, the Board found that Canady had received benefits to which she was not 

entitled because she was discharged from her last work for a disqualifying reason. 
2

Canady brings this appeal of the Board’s decision finding her liable to repay the 

overpayment of benefits totaling $14,272.

Board decisions are upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. Blanton v. 

Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 205, at 1, 575 S.W.3d 186, 187. Substantial evidence is such relevant 

evidence that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id., 575 

S.W.3d at 188. In appeals of unemployment-compensation cases, we view the evidence and 

all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s 

findings. Id. at 1–2, 575 S.W.3d at 188. Even if there is evidence that could support a 

different decision, our review is limited to whether the Board could have reasonably reached 

its decision on the basis of the evidence presented. Id. at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 188. 

This court’s decision in Carman v. Director confirmed that, for purposes of the 

overpayment of state unemployment benefits, the repayment may be waived “if the director 

finds that the overpayment was received as a direct result of an error by the Division of 

Workforce Services and that its recovery would be against equity and good conscience.” 

Carman v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 51, at 7, 660 S.W.3d 852, 857 (quoting Ark. Code Ann. § 

11-10-532(b)(2)(A) (Supp. 2021)). Carman also holds that the repayment of Federal Pandemic 

Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits may be waived if the State determines that 

the payment of the FPUC benefits was without fault on the part of the worker and that 

repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. Id. at 8, 660 S.W.3d at 857 

(citing 15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2)). 
3

The record indicates that Canady received regular state unemployment benefits, 

extended state unemployment benefits, and FPUC. Neither the Board’s nor the Tribunal’s 

opinions made findings regarding how much of the total overpayment is attributable to each 

program. 

Accordingly, on remand, the Board is tasked with making findings sufficient to 

establish what amount of the overpayment is attributable to state unemployment benefits 

and what amount is attributable to FPUC. Regarding the FPUC, the Board is further tasked 

with making findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether the payments were 

made without the fault of the claimant and whether repayment would be contrary to equity 

and good conscience. Hancock v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 597, at 3.

Remanded.

HARRISON, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.

Sherry Canady, pro se appellant.

Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.